Log in
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Dynamic quotes 

MarketScreener Homepage  >  Equities  >  Nyse  >  Uber Technologies, Inc.    UBER


News SummaryMost relevantAll newsPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsAnalyst Recommendations

Dutch Forum Clause Does Not Amount To Much: Supreme Court Says That Uber Arbitration Clause Is Unconscionable

share with twitter share with LinkedIn share with facebook
06/29/2020 | 12:08pm EDT

In a much-anticipated decision released on June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada has changed the law with respect to the doctrine of unconscionability. By doing so this has allowed a proposed class action lawsuit by Uber and UberEATS drivers to proceed.

There will undoubtedly be ramifications to the way consumer contracts are interpreted in Canadian courts moving forward particularly with respect to arbitration clauses and forum selection clauses. Further, this paves the way for other potential legal challenges made by "gig economy" contract workers with respect to employment standards.


The nominal plaintiff of the proposed class, David Heller, was an UberEATS delivery driver who had entered into a 15-page UberEATS driver services agreement with an Uber affiliate by clicking yes to confirm acceptance on his mobile device. The services agreement contained a commercial arbitration clause providing that any disputes are to be resolved pursuant to international mediation and arbitration rules and that the place of arbitration shall be Amsterdam. The plaintiff commenced a proposed class proceeding against various companies affiliated with Uber, based out of the Netherlands.

Uber and UberEATS provide ride-sharing and food delivery services through contract workers in major cities throughout Canada. The key issue in the proposed class action is whether or not the drivers fall under the statutory employment scheme and benefit from its entitlements such as overtime pay - that issue remains to be determined.

Uber had successfully applied to stay the proceedings on the basis that the arbitration clause applied and that the Court was precluded from interfering in accordance with applicable arbitration legislation (see: 2018 ONSC 718). The evidence before the lower court was that it would cost the plaintiff US$14,500 in up-front costs to cover administrative and filing fees, plus legal and other costs to participate. Mr. Heller earned between approximately CDN$20,000 and $31,000 per year before expenses. Under the terms of the services agreement, the arbitration was to take place in the Netherlands, though Uber was amenable to having the arbitration in Canada.

Courts Below

The motion judge stayed the proceedings pursuant to the arbitration legislation. This legislation encourages private dispute resolution mechanisms and requires the Court to stay proceedings when a valid arbitration agreement is in place, subject to limited exceptions. In applying this legislation, the judge held that the dispute had to be heard in first instance by the arbitrator. The judge also found in the alternative that neither the Ontario's employment standards legislation nor the equitable doctrine of unconscionability, which was addressed in the recent Supreme Court decision, Douez v. Facebook, Inc., 2017 SCC 33 [Facebook] invalidated the arbitration clause. Our previous blog post regarding the Facebook case is linked here: Supreme Court Modifies "Strong Cause" Requirement in Determining Enforceability of Forum Selection Clauses in Consumer Contracts.

The Ontario Court of Appeal (2019 ONCA 1) disagreed with the motion judge and held that the arbitration clause was invalid because the parties illegally contracted-out of the provisions of the Ontario employment legislation and because it was unconscionable. As a result, the proposed class action proceedings could continue in Ontario courts. Uber appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Supreme Court Decision

Concurring reasons from seven of the Supreme Court justices authored by Justices Abella and Rowe held that the arbitration clause in the agreement is unconscionable and expand upon Justice Abella's previous reasons regarding the doctrine of unconscionability in Facebook. Justice Brown, concurring in the outcome, alternatively reasoned that the appeal should be dismissed because the arbitration clause is instead contrary to public policy as it undermines the rule of law. Justice Brown's concurring reasons are critical of the majority's insofar as they expand the doctrine of unconscionability. The dissenting reasons of Justice Côté emphasized the principle of the freedom of parties to contract without court interference would have allowed Uber's appeal by ordering a conditional stay of proceedings on the basis that Uber advance Mr. Heller's filing fees.

The test for unconscionability requires two steps: (1) inequality of bargaining power and (2) an improvident bargain. In this decision, the majority incrementally moved the goal post for both steps of the analysis and introduced more equitable discretion for judges, particularly in circumstances dealing with standard form contracts. Prior case law has been reluctant to extend the applicability of the doctrine without a readily-apparent vulnerability and has not greatly differentiated between standard form or electronic consumer contracts and other commercial contracts.

The majority affirmed that there is no need for evidence of Mr. Heller being a vulnerable person, but what matters is the relative difference in power. The majority reasons call for contextual insight into the parties' relative sophistication and by doing so increases the kinds of persons in need of the Court's equitable protection. The Court relied upon the gulf in sophistication between Mr. Heller, a delivery driver, and Uber, a multi-national business, and accepted that Mr. Heller could not be expected to understand the implications of agreeing to arbitrate in the Netherlands under Dutch law. Even if he had read the contract, making him an exception to the rule, the agreement did not attach the international arbitration rules.

The majority also stressed the contextuality of assessing unfairness or improvidence particularly in consumer contracts, though little was provided in the way of stricture or guidance. In applying the framework of the analysis to the facts of the case, the majority held that the $14,500 up-front fees to arbitrate, in addition to the technical rules requirements, was improvident. The amount was found to be disproportionate to potential arbitral awards and also gave an "impression" that disputes would require travel to the Netherlands. The majority stated that no reasonable person who understood and appreciated the effects of the arbitration clause would have entered into it.

The difficulty of Mr. Heller to arbitrate his complaint was also the basis upon which the Court has addressed the so-called "competence-competence" principle by which arbitral disputes must be resolved in first instance by arbitrators. Another noteworthy aspect of the decision was the majority's conclusion, with Justice Brown concurring, that prior case law did not contemplate situations where the dispute would never be resolved if parties were required to arbitrate first. These circumstances raise access to justice issues, according to the majority of the Court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Calen Nixon
MLT Aikins LLP
1500 - 1874 Scarth Street
S4P 4E9
Tel: 204957 0050
Fax: 204957 0840
E-mail: marketingservices@mltaikins.com
URL: www.mltaikins.com

© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

Stocks mentioned in the article
ChangeLast1st jan.
FACEBOOK 1.13% 243.58 Delayed Quote.18.67%
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3.38% 33.93 Delayed Quote.14.09%
share with twitter share with LinkedIn share with facebook
06:11aUBER TECHNOLOGIES : International Arbitration Clause Confirmed Unfair By Canadia..
06:10aUBER TECHNOLOGIES : Supreme Court Expands Unconscionability Doctrine To Invalida..
04:01aUBER TECHNOLOGIES : Boat service to be launched in London with Thames Clippers
01:45aELON MUSK : Tesla 'very close' to level 5 autonomous driving technology, Musk sa..
07/08Tesla 'very close' to level 5 autonomous driving technology, Musk says
07/08LYFT : Study suggests most Uber, Lyft drivers in Seattle not poorly paid
07/08UBER TECHNOLOGIES : introduces rental service for customers
07/08UBER TECHNOLOGIES : And Ola Win Antitrust Case In India (?) – No Hub And S..
07/07Uber launches grocery delivery in Latin America, Canada with U.S. to follow
07/07UBER TECHNOLOGIES : Introducing Grocery Delivery
More news
Financials (USD)
Sales 2020 12 993 M - -
Net income 2020 -5 932 M - -
Net Debt 2020 740 M - -
P/E ratio 2020 -9,81x
Yield 2020 -
Capitalization 58 834 M 58 834 M -
EV / Sales 2019
EV / Sales 2020 4,59x
Nbr of Employees 28 600
Free-Float 93,0%
Duration : Period :
Uber Technologies, Inc. Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
Income Statement Evolution
Mean consensus BUY
Number of Analysts 44
Average target price 41,47 $
Last Close Price 33,93 $
Spread / Highest target 70,9%
Spread / Average Target 22,2%
Spread / Lowest Target -33,7%
EPS Revisions
Dara Khosrowshahi Chief Executive Officer & Director
Ronald D. Sugar Chairman
Nelson J. Chai Chief Financial Officer
Yasir bin Othman Al-Rumayyan Independent Director
David I. Trujillo Independent Director
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capitalization (M$)
NETFLIX, INC.55.39%221 125
PROSUS N.V.30.92%160 495